About your Search

20130216
20130224
SHOW
Hannity 22
Cavuto 11
( more )
STATION
MSNBCW 84
MSNBC 82
FOXNEWS 71
FBC 56
CNNW 47
CSPAN 46
CNN 43
CNBC 22
CSPAN2 21
KQED (PBS) 21
WBAL (NBC) 17
WETA 14
KNTV (NBC) 13
KPIX (CBS) 13
WJZ (CBS) 13
( more )
LANGUAGE
English 796
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 804 (some duplicates have been removed)
the expenditures, deficits and surpluses, we end up with a net of almost $19 million short. the pending supplementals, both approved and pending before the board of supervisors amount to 6.4 million to the general fund. and then the use of the general re serve of 32.2 million. we are assuming you will need to use all of that reserve in order to balance the budget. and then the deposits to reserves, because of our increases to revenue, amount to 11 million. so, that brings us to a projected fund balance estimate of 174 million. as i mentioned before, 103 million of that was already committed to the year two. and the replenishment of the general re serve that we will be using this year needs to be incorporated in next year's budget, leaving us with a projected surplus of $38 million. so, the next slide provides you with a summary of our major tax revenue in the city and it shows you where the bulk of that surplus 72 million come from. and that is property transfer taxes, about $21 million over the budget as we are taking a look at the cash we've received thus far and estimating how much a
to close that deficit. the public defender, however, we do not believe that the public defender will be able to close his deficit and this is entirely in the area of sail. -- salaries. as was talked about last week, there are a number of vacancies that the public defender has that the controller's office is now holding vacant because of the existing deficit. so, unless there is a supplemental appropriation of additional general fund money to the public defenders office, we in the controller's office have the authority and responsibility to hold any additional spending until there is such policy from the mayor and the board of supervisors. emergency management will likely be able to close their doctor this deficit with holding positions vacant and some of their operating expenses. so, taken together, all these net shortfall departments represent a shortage of about $51.3 million. and then the bottom half of that table identifies the surplus department. and, so, the human services agency has seen a significant reduction in their expenses in the current year. and then beyond that,
. we can do it while shrinking our deficit. begin a have to choose. we just need to make smarter choices. last year both parties work together to reduce the deficit by more than 2.5 trillion dollars. up at a store the goal of 4 trillion dollars to stabilize -- that is helping us reach the goal of $4 trillion to stabilize the deficit. we cannot for senior citizens and working families to bear the burden of deficit reduction while the wealthiest are asked to do nothing more. that will not work. we cannot cut our way to prosperity. i propose a balanced approach to bring down the cost of healthcare and getting rid of tax lee pulls -- tax loopholes. we should pursue bipartisan comprehensive tax reform that encourages job creation and helps bring down the deficit. we know what we need to do. the steps are common sense. it will help grow our economy and strengthen our middle class. in the coming weeks and months, our work will not be easy. but america only moves forward when we do so together. when we accept our obligation to one another and to the future generations. that is the americ
've made in our budget deficit projection, we're assuming we will want to have a state reserve so that costs us money those years. we assume that some of the one-time sources that we may have used to balance the budget last year are not available and then we have revenue growth in the general fund. and i have assumed that there will be about $50 million of revenue growth and -- in the first year and 128 million in the second year. on the expenditure side, what you can see is that our costs are growing largely because of personnel related costs. so, this is slide 9. the first line, so, $8.8 million of costs greater than what we -- what you adopted in the budget last year. but recall that the budget we adopted for the second year already had $90 million of wage and benefit growth for our existing employees on the general fund. so, essentially what that means is that in 13-14 it will cost us $100 million to have the same employees that we have this year and the subsequent year it will cost another $100 million. so, $200 million in growth in wage and benefits. and that's largely drive
of those for the purpose of deficit reduction. that is what our plan does in the short term and that is what it would do in the long term. we hope we can have an opportunity to have an up and down vote on the plan that we have put forward. at least two or three times we are going to be asking for a vote in the rules committee for that proposal. i hope we can have an opportunity to have a free flow of debate and ultimately a vote. thank you mr. chairman. >> i would love to begin the debate right now but we have a hearing to get into. the floor is yours. >> thank you mr. chairman. i appreciate the opportunity to be here today and discuss with you cbo's outlook for the budget and economy for the next 10 years. are analyzing shows that the country continues to debate a very large economic challenges. i will discuss the economy first and then i will turn to the budget. we anticipate economic growth will remain slow this year because of the gradual improvement in underlying economic factors will be offset. the good news is that the effects of the financial and housing prices appea
to reduce our deficit i more than $2.5 trillion. more than two thirds of that was through some really tough spending cuts. the rest of it was through raising taxes, tax rates on the wealthiest 1% of americans. together, when you take the spending cuts and increased tax rates on the top 1%, it puts us halfway to the goal of four dollars trillion -- $4 trillion in deficit reduction. thomas say we needed to stabilize finances. -- economists say we need it. congress also passed a law in 2011 saying that if both parties cannot agree agree on a plan to achieve that goal, about one trillion dollars of additional, arbitrary budget cuts would take effect this year. and the design was to make and the design was to make them so unattractive and unappealing that democrats and republicans would actually get together and find a good compromise of sensible cuts as well as closing tax loopholes and so forth. so, this was all designed to say we cannot do these bad cuts, let's do something smarter. that was the point of this so- called sequestration. unfortunately, congress did not compromise. they had to co
did what it did, why we had the stimulus package, it did in fact raise the deficit. we all know that the deficits are a bad thing. bigger deficits are bad, other things were not all that close and there was a rationale. the biggest message of the book was the rationale, this paradox that there were massive markets that ran amok. they went off the track. the government came in not perfectly, but pretty effectively to try to put things back on track. at the end of the day we witness, and you have all witnesses, is quite sharp backlash. americans have never liked big government. but there was a reason for government interventions. it was a market failure in the financial world. the likes of which we have not seen since 1930s. if we had done nothing about it since then, the 1930s probably would've been a preview of what was to happen. nonetheless, you did have this backlash against the government in general, against president obama, present bush left office shortly after they started. against the democratic party more generally, against the federal reserve. against keynesian economi
are and why the deficit is where it is. so, just as a reminder to you and to members of the public who may be interested, we have currently a $7.4 billion budget, $3.5 billion in the general fund and in the current year nearly 27,000 employees. our largest revenue is the property tax and our largest cost is and as you all know, our largest department is the department of public health. * last year we moved forward with the first year of two-year budgeting for all departments. we have [speaker not understood] two-year budgets, mta, puc, [speaker not understood] and all others are rolling. which means this year again you will see all of the departments for an update, two-year budget, 13-14, 14-15, 15-16. those must balance. [speaker not understood]. so, just to refresh our memories about how we balanced the budget last year, largely revenue growth some one-time solutions, some departmental and city-wide solutions, we deferred full funding for capital funding, it funding and equipment funding in the second year of the budget which means that that's going to contribute to our deficit in the pr
. >> nothing i'm proposing tonight should increase our deficit by a single dime and i instantly thought of this. all the work it does, this machine should sell for over $400 you know you're fot going to spend $400 for it not 375 or 350, all you spend for in fabulous machine and over $400 value, all you spend is just four easy monthly payments of 39.95. >> neil: we found a better deal. the president's pitch won't call you four easy installments of 39.95, he says it won't add a dime to our debt. the 90 billion dollars pre-school plan. not the 40 million dollars infrastructure plan. >> i have no idea. on the college career fund. that's right, three new government programs that on paper some say cost 146 billion bucks, not a dime added to our deficit. and pitching on more than that, but one problem with the pitch, okay, here is the thing, someone's got to pay for it. guess who? gerri willis, adam. lashins lashinsky. charlie gasperino. >> neil: and to like i said, arles payne who did such a od job, i'm cutting -- >> and unfortunately your mic does work. >> outside of the aspecof this. extraordinaril
. in 2012 japan logged the biggest yearly trade deficit. and already this early into the new year, 2013, japan is already breaking new records. the trade balance for the country has shown the largest monthly deficit ever. that is based on comparable data that have been compiled since 1979, while the yen weakness has led to an increase in exports, more fuel imports weighed on the balance. finance ministry officials said the trade deficit for january came to about $17.4 billion. the balance has been in the red o'for seven months in a row. japan's exports rose by 6.4% from a year earlier in yen terms. they have risen for the first time in eight months. auto parts exports contributed to the increase. but imports also rose for a third consecutive month, and by 7.3% from a year earlier. higher demand for energy, for use in thermal power generators, was a major factor. and let's get a check on the markets. first taking a look at the stock market. tokyo share prices are trading higher after the dow jones industrial average reached its highest level this year on tuesday. sources say investors ar
amount with trillions in deficits every year, we're headed towards greece. we're going to make them look solvent. >> at one pentagon official says, "it really scares the hell out of meat." does it scare you? >> we are not greece, but you can get to be them with silliness like this and no responsibility. evan is right. the president is leading, but not in the direction that he wants. he is leaving to blame the republicans, which i suspect he will succeed in. the republicans seem to have this affinity for suicide diving. they will get blamed. the only answer here is to get together and obama thinks he has them on the ropes. republicans cannot seem to get it together. >> we just heard dr. rand paul said the sequestration was the president's idea. wasn't it? >> who cares. it's a bad idea on both sides. and the the president's responsibility. this is typical washington. it is the president's responsibility more than anyone else's, particularly a second term president. it's his responsibility to rise above this. he's not doing it. >> i'm not sure you something. this was the cover of "the new y
's accountability for these big ideas and, in fact, does it cost pony or will it actually not add to the deficit as the president promisees? >> well, to look at it misorically. 1981 ronald reagan came in with his budget program said this would reduce the deficit even though we were cutting taxes and increasing defense spending. turned out to be the highest deficits of that time in history. but, looking back, i'm glad he spent that money because that money was spent to end the cold war. had we been a little bit more careful about that that would have hant. we got over the deficits in ten years. oddly enough, if you look at it with a longer view, these things look different. >> it keeps as if we're trying to re-elections. now the dems want to take the house back. they're moving aggressively to make sure the republicans seek control of the house of representatives in 2014. do we just keep going from cliff to cliff so that everybody can win re-election? >> as michael knows the history on a lot of these elections, midterm elections even better than i do. and i think -- i know democrats may want to do
with the president's tax hikes, the budget never ever balances. it doesn't even come close. by 2023 the deficit will be nearly one trillion dollars. the president says we need a balanced approach, which means one tax hike after another. of mathematically we cannot tax our way out of this problem. we need to get serious on spending. unfortunately the president has yet to produce a budget. in violation of the law it has yet to be received by congress. democrats have not passed a budget in nearly four years. hopefully that will change. we will offer our budget here in the house on time next month in accordance to the law. we will put our plan against the president's and we will have a healthy debate in the house. i would like to yield to the ranking member. >>, mr. chairman. i want to join the chairman in welcoming dr. elmendorf. with respect to the timing of the budget submission, i think all of us know that we struggled and toast january 2 to pass legislation to avoid the fiscal cliff. the results of that legislation was to make sure we did not see a sharp increase in taxes on middle income amer
pipe hive and so we begin here with this graph the federal budget surplot plus or deficit. obviously it's been some time since we have run anything like a significant budget surplus we went into the recession carrying a farrell substantial deficit and obviously that really ballooned and got much much worse and what we are facing now are really the biggest bulletin deficits that the united states economy has faced since the second world war we are moving in the right direction it's getling smogger and it's still a farrell daunting challenge and this is what was westbound bend the whole fiscal cliff last year and we ended up with an 11th hour deal to avoid the worst of the fiscal live kcliff and i'm not going to read all of the stuff on this slide but basically what we got was tax increases that effect the working poor primarily and the very affluent and not really not much of an impact on the middle class and you can may be have your own political opinions about that but the spending cuts didn't really take much effect at all. the spending cuts are now poised to go into effect march 1
also got higher taxes via obamacare. the president's sequester is the wrong way to reduce the deficit, but it is here to stay until washington democrats get serious about cutting spending. the government simply cannot keep delaying the inevitable and spending money it doesn't have. unquote. question, president obama wants to pin sequestration on the republicans. speaker boehner calls sequestration, as you saw, quote unquote, the president's sequester. is he right? >> yes, he is right, in that it was proposed by the president and by his folks when they had the budget impasse, as a way of i say, putting pressure on both sides at some point to deal with it. but our government is so dysfunctional we are at this particular stage now. the problem now is, where do we go from here in terms of this is going to undermine the confidence of the country in the government, and its ability to address problems. it is going to undermine the confidence of business who wants to invest. this is just another disgrace in terms of the way the american government works. >> it's an exaggeration. >> no, i don'
for the weekend, but not before his weekend address. time to finish the job by cutting the deficit $4 billion. >> you can make bigger cuts to education and job training and social security benefits. senior citizens and working families to bear the burden of deficit reduction, while the wealthiest are asked to do nothing more. >> that won't work, we can't cut our way to prosperity. >> republicans aren't holding back, criticizing the president over the upcoming threat of sequestration, if nothing is done to avoid it, massive funding cuts to the federal government will be triggered march 1st. >> in his state of the union address, these cuts were a really bad idea. what the president failed to mention was that the sequester was his idea proposed by his administration, and the debt limit negotiations in 2011. and now we in the house on behalf of our constituents are calling on the president to join us in replacing the sequester with better, more responsible spending cuts. >> meanwhile, a glimpse of the president's personal side in a rare moment, he discussed his own childhood while talking about f
promised that we could have growth and a lower deficit. in fact, we have had almost no growth, and the deficit is rising again. that is because people are not at work and paying taxes. they are a lot of work and on benefits. we will only build prosperity what everyone does their part. and to do that, we need a new one nation's strategy for the british economy. the starting point is where i started, in the recovery made by many, not just a few. we cannot go on with an approach that simply promises more of the same. year after year of squeezed living standards for the majority of working people. did is wrong for them, and it is wrong for our economy -- it is wrong for them. we should start with a temporary cut in value added tax. canceling the millionaire's tax cut, and not cutting tax credits this april for working people. the approach we need is not just different go from this government. it is different from the last. after the next election, there will be less money around. we will inherit a high deficit and face difficult choices, but we have also learned from this governme
a detailed plan to cut the deficit by $2.5 trillion. it would be 3-1 cuts to taxes. >> they can scoff all they want but either get your country on course and forget the fact you're a democrat or a republican and get to be an american and get cracking! >> the truth is both camps have got to get out of their comfort zone and got to make these tough decisions. naeed the ea they made the easy ones and now have to make the critical ones. >> is this something you would support or could use as a starting point? >> we need to use it as a starting point. i'm not telling you that it's perfect. you know? i don't think, you know, senator simpson walked down from the mountain with all of the solutions. i think we need to sit and starting talking about this as opposed to to posturing. whether the president invites a republican or knows his name? these are absurd postulations. we can't grow the economy when people don't know what it looks like. >> you're on the subcommittee on immigration and huge outrage from the republicans about the leak of those details on the plan of immigration. when you look at t
but to give them time to work together on a plan that finishes the job of deficit reduction in a sensible way. >> sounds sensible enough. >> it is sensible, i feel for him. he is the president, he has obligations we don't have. sitting on the sidelines, i sometimes wish he would fully let the bluff play out, and say this is what we need to do. that is something president clinton did, people don't realize until the crisis becomes threatened, but real. >> there is nothing he can do. i mean, it is going to happen. he is just making a suggestion, hey, guys, how about something smaller now if you can't get the big deal done. >> and sometimes that is what congress needs. i was just in washington over the weekend. you go in all the museums where you don't have to pay an entrance fee to get in. they're all subsidized by the taxpayer. one woman said you know, we're always the villain, but we're there doing the hard work they don't know we're doing. federal workers are always the bad guy. people don't understand the government is things like the post office or things we need. everybody wants to cut the
. this is not smart way for us to reduce the deficit. >> not smart? >> the president was just being gracious. these cuts are crazy. not republicans are not letting them happen. especially to protect the rich. the american people don't want any of these cuts that are about to kick in next friday. 80% of spending cuts on education, just 10% want the cut. 83% oppose spending cuts for food and drug inspections. just 14% want them. and 81% oppose spending cuts for roads and infrastructure. just 17% want them. it's simple. americans like their teachers teaching, their roads paved and their food safe. and they are willing to raise taxes on the rich to protect these things. republicans better get on board with that or get out of the way. >>> joining me now, melissa harris-perry and e.j. dionne. thank you both for coming on shot tonight. >> good to be with you. >> listen, the parents has the upperhand politically but the republicans haven't been moved. what is going to happen? >> if you think about what we're looking at with this sequester versus what the president laid out in the state of the union,
with the deficit, and that is that the business elite, a, they're not experiencing unemployment. they're not experiencing declining incomes. they're not having a hard time sending their kids to college or paying for child care. it's very difficult for them to actually see that something like, a, deficit reduction plan is better -- is in the worst interest of the country than something that they are pushing, which is obviously going to be deficit reduction as opposed to job creation. and we actually put out an explainer on this issue just tracking the public opinion among wealthy people, also coincidentally the donor class in washington, and how they favor deficit reduction over job creation 2-1, whereas the vast majority of voters prefer job creation over deficit reduction. >> isn't it supposed to be one in the spairm same, meaning i think the business community thinks if can you get some sort of deficit reduction, maybe something that's not immediate that happens tomorrow that kills growth, but that could actually help -- that could help growth. more of the grand bargain. not the seq
. that would be like democrats saying we have to close our deficits without any spending cuts whatsoever. it's all taxes. that's not the position democrats have taken, that's certainly not the position i've taken. it's wrong to ask the middle class to bear the full burden of deficit reduction. and that's why i will not sign a plan that harms the middle class. so now republicans in congress face a simple choice. are they willing to compromise to protect vital investments in education and health care and national security and all the jobs that depend on them? or would they rather put hundreds of thousands of jobs and our entire economy at risk just to protect a few special interest tax loopholes that benefit the wealthiest individuals and corporations. that's the choice. are you willing to see a bunch of first responders lose their jobs because you want to protect a special interest tax loophole? are you willing to have teachers laid off or kids not have access to head start? or deeper cuts in student loan programs? just because you want to protect a special tax interest loophole that the vast
. as long as the savings are not used to finance deficit spending. now i didn't know the republicans right now are open to closing loopholes and if we close the loophole i would like to take that money and put it into lower marginal tax rates. what is boehner's man saying. why so hinting they would open to close loopholes? >> what he's talking about -- i was going to add he doesn't have any authority to raise taxes. boehner will lose his caucus if he's for any tax increase. >> hi, rogers. good to see you. >> sorry. you said talk. i thought you said talk. >> go ahead. bob costa, tell me this isn't true. this can't be true they are not talking about another tax hike. >> they think they got burned about that fiscal cliff tax that at least let some of those new revenues come in with the bush tax rates expiring. what boehner spokesperson is speaking about the tax reform. nobody expects major tax reform happen in the next week. to your opinion, at least it's a good thing. >> a great thing. keith boykin do you have any problem with my sermon on the mound? do you have any problems with life in gen
and the sequester, the misinformation campaign has worked. a bloomberg poll on the size of america's budget deficit shows 62% of americans think the deficit is getting bigger. 28% of americans think that it's staying the same. and get this number, only 6% agree with the truth. my friends, the deficit is shrinking. the congressional budget office says the deficit is down to $845 billion. it is projected to be $600 billion less than when the president took office. americans need to break out of this misinformation loop, don't you think? if they want to listen to a republican, maybe they should try listening to outgoing transportation secretary ray lahood. he spoke about the sequester consequences today, including the loss of 100 air traffic controllers. >> this requires compromise. this requires republicans stepping forward with some ideas about how to keep essential services of government running at the level that people have been accustomed to. this is not rocket science. >> well, it's not rocket science. but, folks, it is just as serious. get your cell phones out. i want to know what you think. to
at the moment it looks like these will go in. you heard the from the. he not only wants the bigger deal, deficit reduction, long-term plan, but he said if we can't get that by march 1st we won't, we should do something temporary so the cuts don't take effect. there are some democrats who politically, including people in the white house, we see the president making public appeals but his own people privately say in the short term they have the political upper hand and it would help them and would hurt republicans in congress heading into the 2014 cycle to have this happen. both parties, both sides, if you will, are playing some short-term political calculations. republicans think, look, we've tried to get cuts from the president, gave him tax increases in the last minicrisis, and our only leverage is to get these cuts. athals think some of these predictions are more sky is falling rhetoric and that federal managers will be forced to make tough choices and won't have the most sensitive services cut, but they'll cut other things. it's a game of chicken but at the moment there are no serious negotia
will be a lot better off than they were under labour with a record deficit, with an reformed welfare, with a busted banking system. they would've seen a government that's cut the deficit down, that's cut the income tax is, that is dealt with the banks. and as the governor of the bank of england said today, it's on the road to recovery. >> all the shows is how out of touch he is. and he's even out of touch with his own office for budget responsibility figures. because what they showed is that by 2015, people will be worse off than they were in 2010. because prices have been rising faster than earnings under him. and why is this happening? it's because he told us the economy would be growing. he told us the economy would be growing, but the truth is it has been flat-lining. will be acknowledged that it's his failure to get growth which means we're having a falling, not rising living standards in this country? >> first of all, i would remind him that inflation is lower under thisovernment than what we inherited from labour. it has been cut in half from its peak but, of course, it is que
under labour with a record deficit, with unreformed welfare and with a busted banking system. they will have seen a government who have got the deficit down, cut their income taxes and dealt with the banks. as the governor of the bank of england said today, we are on the road to recovery. >> all the right honorable gentleman shows is how out of touch he is. he is even out of touch with his own office for budget responsibility's figures, which show that, by 2015, people will be worse off than they were in 2010 because prices have been rising faster than earnings under his government. why is this happening? he told us that the economy would be growing, but the truth is that it has been flatlining. will he acknowledge that it is his failure to get growth that means that we have falling, not rising, living standards in this country? >> the right honorable gentleman says that prices are rising, but i would remind him that inflation is lower under this government than what we inherited from labour. it has been cut in half from its peak. of course, if his question is, "have you had
. in this case it means deficit reduction through entitlement reforms, spending cuts, and tax reforms that produce more revenues. that is how we have gotten to where we are which is $5.2 trillion in deficit reduction under this president. that is how we'll get to the goal of $4 trillion in total reduction over 10 years if congress does the right thing, avoids this unnecessary cry seance all the negative effects that would come from it. passes down the short term buydown of the sequester and proproceeds with regular business. >> for natural gas and exports but u.s. masters are worried they could be impacted. is this allowing to exports and natural gas to japan? >> i appreciate the question. i'm sure we'll have a preview for you with the prime minister. i don't want to negotiate with our important allies. i'm sure we'll have more to say about this tomorrow and friday. >> what is the president's plan to prevent the sequestration from happening? you've talked about budget cuts -- what are those cuts he's proposaling? >> you can go to white house.gov and look at the reporting done and the
.5 trillion in deficit reduction over the next 10 years. we're ready to do another $1.5 trillion that every economist says we need to do to stablize the debt problem. >> schieffer: would you say morning the profit united states will not let this happen? >> the president of the united states is doing everything he can to not let this happen. we need to work with our friends on the hill. when you look at the senate democratic plan and the president's plan, both very balanced plans that gets some savings in this deficit fight from spending cuts and some savings from increased revenues. what our friends in the house have told us is that they will not even consider anything that includes h1n1 creased revenuees, not even closing loopholes will for corporate jets, closing loopholes will for oil and gas companies. that seems to me to be a position that they should reexamine and come to the table and have a real discussion about it. >> schieffer: "u.s.a. today" said the white house has been circulating its own immigration plan that provides some path to citizensship for people already here. speaker
should pass a balanced, bipartisan deficit reduction to avoid it. if allowed to occur, sequestration would have significant and disruptive consequences for domestic investment, national security, and poor government services. -- and core government services. the cuts required a harm middle- class families, seniors, and the most vulnerable. the president believes these indiscriminate across-the-board cuts are not ours possible way -- are not a responsible way to address our goals of balance deficit reduction. we have made significant progress in this regard. we have an active deficit reductions over the past twothe vast majority of this progress has come in the form of spending cuts. roughly three dollars in spending cuts for every one dollar in additional revenue. the president believes we need to have a balanced approach that includes a spending cuts, but also includes commonsense tax reform that can raise additional revenue. as part of the american -- act president would have to issue this a question should date was delayed from january 2 to march 1, 2013. with $24 billion in defic
't go and the place, there is no way around the fact that to try to reduce the deficit, we will have to cut military spending. to have a secretary of defense to as an enlisted soldier and you say offers some plans, i think it will make him an effective cost cutter. it will promote relationships and are also going to do the tough order of downsizing the military at a moment where we need to compromise our safety. and he is a republican. it is unlikely pick for president obama because he is choosing someone that historically did not agree with the president on every subject. he thought was important to have a cabinet that was the cross- section of america. that makes the opposition even harder to understand given the fact that on those issues, this pick might agree with the republican caucus more than democratic. >> james is an independent color. >> i had something for the center based on his research of the gun control problem. i wonder if he noticed two common threads, also including the latest hot shooter in california. first, all of the mass shooters would be columbine, virginia te
should increase our deficit by a single dime. >> jane: instantly thought of this. >> through all the work it does, this machine should sell over $400. you are not going to pay $400 or 375, all you spend for 24 fabulous machine over $400 value. all you spend is four easy monthly payments of 39.95. >> neil: we fined a better deal. the president's deal won't cost you four installments, it won't add a dime. $98 billion preschool plan, not the $40 billion fix it infrastructure plan -- don't ask -- or the paltry $8 billion career fund for community colleges. three new programs it sounds like they cost $146 billion, not a dime added to our deficit and he is pitching more than that. one problem with the pitch. here is the thing. someone has to pay for it. guess who? to gerri willis. to charlie and to my good buddy, charms payne who did such a good job for filling in for me when i was out. charms, what do you make for this? >> with infomercial, i will take two machines and money back guarantee. >> neil: unfortunately your mic is working. >> outside of the aspect of this was dangerous state of the
deficit. the revenue deficit. we had suggested that the controller provide a more broad summary of all of the reserves and the set asides when the committee goes to five members. [speaker not understood] the kind of rules and policies regarding all of these reserves. since the financial policies were in effect a couple of years ago, we really have made a tremendous amount of progress in establishing reserves that have been looked upon very favorably by the rating agencies and though more importantly we will have money available in the next downturn that will keep us on a more steady footing in terms of how much money and it will prevent big cuts and layoffs. so, i'm available to answer any additional questions and we will definitely be with you on a weekly basis and provide you with updates as they occur. >> thank you. colleagues, any further questions? thank you very much, ms. zamuda. and ms. howard, i know you spoke earlier. we asked you about the kind of impact on everything on the budget outlook. is there anything else you wanted to add at this point? >> the thing that i wou
european countries are likely to have higher deficits this year than had been expected. that applies to france, the u.'s second-biggest economy. new borrowing is expected to be well over the target of 3% of gdp. the ecb says france must get its deficit down. >> i believe it is in france's interest to stick to the target of a balanced budget in the medium term. only if the budget is balanced is there any room for maneuver during an economic downturn. >> de e you expect france to see growth this year of just the 0.1%. like the eu as a whole, it is not expected to see growth above 1% until 2014. >> despite all the bad news from the eurozone, german businesses think the future is looking up. the business confidence index has gone up again in february. >> it is the fourth month in a row that the index has risen. it is at its highest level in nearly a year. and to service thousands of german companies about the prospects every month. >> german carmaker volkswagen made record-breaking profits but still sees a bumpy road ahead. they took in almost 32 billion euros last year, more than ever b
? >> nothing i am proposing should increase the deficit by a single dime. >> the president offered more of the same, higher taxes and more stimulus spending. >> the president wants congress to, with $40 billion to improve infrastructure, wants to raise the minimum wage to $9 an hour, wants a new energy bill similar to cap-and-trade, wants preschool for every 4-year-old in the nation, tax reform, gun control, and citizenship for undocumented immigrants. what are his chances, charles? >> approximately zero. he is talking as if we have a huge surplus, so we can start spending all over again. if the inaugural address was a philosophical statement of what i would call his left liberalism, the state of the union address was a programmatic expression of that. is there a human ill or social ill that he did not have the government's answer to? if he did, i did not hear it. >> mark? >> it that is a liberal agenda, we have really move the goalposts in our country. i thought the speech -- the sum of the parts did not create a greater whole. i thought that the parts of it were really good. i liked t
to make the growth deficit a priority in just the way we've been making the fiscal deficit a priority. because the truth is, we are never going to resolve the fiscal deficit in any ultimate sense in an economy that's growing at 1%, 1.5% or even 2% a year. we have to move to a focus on the growth deficit and if we do that, i think we'll be surprised at how rapidly we'll see improvement in the fiscal picture and i think we'll see a variety of -- because extra tax revenues will come in and less need to pay unemployment insurance benefits. i think we'll also be surprised at, as the economy starts to grow, businesses will be able to invest more in innovation. there's a tendency, which i think is badly wrong, to argue that we need to stop focusing on the short run and we need to focus on the long run instead. i think when we put the focus on stopping stagnation and having america be a rapid escalator, again, what we are doing is the policy that will best prepare us for the long run. >> so, what you are saying, finally, is that the whole effort of kind of the conventional wisdom around simps
patty murray put out. we need a balance approach to further reduction. we reduced the deficit over $2.5 trillion. the president made clear and made clear today that we that his offer to speaker boehner is still on the table. that would cut our deficit another $1.8 trillion, bringing the total deficit reduction to over $4 trillion. so there is a path forward. the path forward is no surprise. it's bipartisan about compromise. it will be entitlement savings and there will also be revenue savings, closing loophole it and the tax expenditures. nobody will get 100% of what they want. that is the balanced way forward to help us avoid a self-inflicted would of a sequester. >> bret: republicans obviously have issue with the $2.5 trillion you talk about. we have can go into that. we have on this show many times. the senate democrats never moved it out of committee. they control the senate chamber. why didn't they vote on it? >> you will see a vote coming up on you will see something to help delay it over the next year. you have already seen the elements of a short-term balanced plan. >> i want
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 804 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)